A single answer to this question misses the context. You have to judge the situation to determine what kind of an exit interview to have. Is the organization open to feedback? If you have worked any length of time in an org, you should have a pretty good idea of whether honest feedback would be useful or not. Using the exit interview for venting maybe cathartic in the short term but not very useful for the long term.
For a complex issue like this it may be more useful to look at a different level of analysis. It seems to be pretty clear from various discussions and lots of evidence that the current IP (intellectual property) system is tying up a lot of wealth (as in hoarding) that should rightfully be available to the whole community. Then the issue is how do we go about changing this and to what purpose.
The original purpose in the US Constitution seems to me to be still valid:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The current state of the law is very clearly not doing this. Ownership has become separated from the source of creation for most cases. Ownership in such a case is what leads to the hoarding and tying up of wealth that belongs in the public domain. And ownership has created such an amount of wealth and influence that the owners are in arms fighting to keep wealth not created by them (RIAA, MPAA, Pharmas,...). So, how do you change a system that has gotten corrupted to such an extent?
Machiavelli's comments on change are relevant: "because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new."
The degree of loss of the hoarded wealth and its impact in impoverishing us as a planet is not readily apparent. The incredible flourishing of open source does give us some hint of how huge that loss is in the many areas where there is little or no open source.
So, change in this area is going to be very difficult in a direct fashion. It may come about through disruptive technologies, e.g., open source. The causal factors keeping the status quo and the great loss of wealth have to do with the concentration of decision making into fewer and fewer channels. Oligarchies and aristocracies arise naturally in human affairs. And they are not willing to let go of the reins they have so artfully constructed over decades and centuries.
Thinking at the level of should it be 5, 10, 15, 20 years of IP protection is working at the level of writing code without an architecture, design, or specification. Of course, it is so satisfying to start writing code and one does get the feeling of accomplishing something.
Slashdot Mirror
A single answer to this question misses the context. You have to judge the situation to determine what kind of an exit interview to have. Is the organization open to feedback? If you have worked any length of time in an org, you should have a pretty good idea of whether honest feedback would be useful or not. Using the exit interview for venting maybe cathartic in the short term but not very useful for the long term.
The original purpose in the US Constitution seems to me to be still valid: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
The current state of the law is very clearly not doing this. Ownership has become separated from the source of creation for most cases. Ownership in such a case is what leads to the hoarding and tying up of wealth that belongs in the public domain. And ownership has created such an amount of wealth and influence that the owners are in arms fighting to keep wealth not created by them (RIAA, MPAA, Pharmas, ...). So, how do you change a system that has gotten corrupted to such an extent?
Machiavelli's comments on change are relevant: "because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new."
The degree of loss of the hoarded wealth and its impact in impoverishing us as a planet is not readily apparent. The incredible flourishing of open source does give us some hint of how huge that loss is in the many areas where there is little or no open source.
So, change in this area is going to be very difficult in a direct fashion. It may come about through disruptive technologies, e.g., open source. The causal factors keeping the status quo and the great loss of wealth have to do with the concentration of decision making into fewer and fewer channels. Oligarchies and aristocracies arise naturally in human affairs. And they are not willing to let go of the reins they have so artfully constructed over decades and centuries.
Thinking at the level of should it be 5, 10, 15, 20 years of IP protection is working at the level of writing code without an architecture, design, or specification. Of course, it is so satisfying to start writing code and one does get the feeling of accomplishing something.